Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 have been examined. Claims 21, 39 and 40 have been amended.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 39-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,482,322. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 21, 39-40 of current application and claims 1, 19-20 recite the same feature of a presentation engine configured to display a trackerboard, wherein the trackerboard includes a graphical user interface that presents collected patient data and is configured to override the stored parsed health care data in the database, via user interaction with the graphical user interface wherein the user interaction comprises adding, removing, editing, or updating the collected patient data, and analytic EMR data relating to one or more patients in the list of patients.
Claims 21, 39-40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,935,645. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 21, 39-40 of current application and claims 1, 19-20 recite the same feature of a presentation engine configured to display a trackerboard, wherein the trackerboard includes a graphical user interface that presents collected patient data and is configured to override the stored parsed health care data in the database, via user interaction with the graphical user interface wherein the user interaction comprises adding, removing, editing, or updating the collected patient data, and analytic EMR data relating to one or more patients in the list of patients.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-27, 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthell et al. (WO2017091603A1 hereinafter Barthell) in view of Fors et al. (US. 20070168223 hereinafter Fors) and further in view of Kartoun et al. (US20190189253A1 hereinafter Kartoun).
With respect to Claim 21, Barthell teaches a computer-implemented system for use with Electronic Medical Records (EMRs), the system comprising:
a parser engine configured to:
receive in real-time or near real-time relative to entry of EMR data into an EMR system for a current health care visit, health care data messages including the EMR data (‘603; Para 0048: the control device 170 is further configured to parse the HL7 messages to identify patients that have checked into one of the various departments. For example, an admission/discharge/transfer ("ADT") message is a form of HL7 message and the queue module 200 is configured to analyze the ADT message and obtain initial patient information from the ADT message and add the patient to a particular department's patient queue); and
parse the health care data messages to identify and extract specified EMR data; a database configured to, in real-time or near real-time relative to entry of the EMR data, receive and store the specified EMR data (‘603; Para 51: The testing and treatment module 205 is configured to analyze patient information parsed from a plurality of clinical messages to determine a suggested treatment for each individual patient. For example, the suggested treatment module 205 is configured to parse the patient's chief complaint from the ADT message and any further HL7 messages including a chief complaint and analyzes the chief complaint data to determine a treatment code); and
Barthell does not, but Fors teaches
a presentation engine configured to display a trackerboard wherein the trackerboard includes at least one graphical user interface that presents health care data relating to one or more patients including the specified EMR data, and is configured to update the specified EMR data stored in the database upon user interaction with the graphical user interface, wherein the user interaction comprises adding, removing, editing, or updating EMR data ,(‘223; Para 0090: rules engine 310 and a notification component 320. In certain embodiments, the system 300 includes a rule interface; Para 0103: a rule interface 330 is present. The rule interface 330 allows a user to define, specify, create, modify, adjust, display, cancel, suspend, override, and/or remove one or more rules included in the rules engine 310. For example, an administrator may define a new rule to be applied to all patients using rule interface 330. As another example, a physician may suspend or override a rule from being evaluated for a particular patient because of the patient's particular condition or circumstances. In an embodiment, the rule interface 330 includes at least in part a point and click and/or graphical interface component.), and wherein the trackerboard display comprises:
a list of the one or more patients determined using the parsed health care data messages (‘223; Para 0028: by disclosure, Fors describes, as in Figs 2a & 2b a patient list using the interface 110 allows a user to manage patient care and/or office management workflow, for example. The interface 110 may be accessible locally (e.g., in the office) and/or remotely (e.g., via the Internet and/or other private network or connection as illustrated in Para 0029) and using the rule engine to receive the patient information, message data which conforms to the HL7 protocol as illustrated in Para 0092); and
analytic EMR data relating to one or more patients in the list of patients, wherein the analytic EMR data is obtained from analysis of, at least, the specified EMR data relating to the one or more patients, and historical and chronologically tracked demographic and EMR data comprising information relating to a plurality of patients, wherein the information is relevant to at least one analytical use case related to the current health care visit and (‘223; Para 0028: in FIGS. 2 a and 2 b, a user may “click on” or otherwise select an entry in a patient list, and enter orders, request additional information, manage prescriptions, review results, etc., with respect to the selected patient. Patient information and/or other default and/or rules-based information may propagate from the patient record to help complete an order entry form, electronic prescription, results review, etc., for the patient, for example.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthel with the technique of providing for a user-configurable data and functionality entry and retrieval system. on graphical user interface or dashboard as taught by Fors in order to override patient data on graphical user interface.
The combined art does not, but Kartoun discloses
comprises at least an indication derived in real-time or near real- time whether the one or more patients is a high risk patient based on one or more machine learning models operating on the specified EMR data and the historical and chronologically tracked demographic and EMR data (‘253; Para 0032: the user interface may include a listing of medical conditions potentially associated with the patient along with corresponding risk scores and an indication of whether or not the patient is at a high risk or not of having the medical condition, e.g., the patient's risk score for the medical condition equals or exceeds a predefined threshold; Para 0095: The risk score, or probability value, generated by evaluating these characteristics, or factors, may be compared to a ground truth for the particular patient in the pool of patients, to determine if the medical condition verification system has correctly or incorrectly identified the particular patient as having the particular medical condition. In response to an error being present a machine learning process is employed to adjust the operational parameters, e.g., weights associated with different structured/unstructured covariates, of the risk scoring engine 124 to reduce the error and increase the accuracy in the risk score calculations. Thus, through the machine learning and training of the risk scoring engine 124, using a training pool of patients,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthel/Fors with the technique of verifying medical conditions of patients in electronic medical records as taught by Kartoun in order to providing high risk patients from Electronic Medical Records using Machine Learning models.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected as the same reason with claim 21.
With respect to Claim 22, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the graphical user interface provides writeback functionality for updates, edits, or overwrites to the specified EMR data in the database (‘223; Para 090).
With respect to Claim 23, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to identify the one or more patients by insurance status in real time or near real time relative to entry of the EMR data (‘223; Para 0051: medical insurance).
With respect to Claim 24, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to filter the list of one or more patients by at least one of admission status and discharge status (‘223 Para 0157).
With respect to Claim 25, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein displaying the trackerboard comprises displaying or enabling display of at least a portion of the list of patients and specified EMR data and analytic EMR data (‘223; Para 0033: the application shown in FIG. 2 a, may list patients currently present in a healthcare facility or department and/or a total listing of patients cared for by the healthcare facility or department).
With respect to Claim 26, the combined art teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the trackerboard display is updated by refreshing the analytic EMR data of at least one patient of the list of patients in real time or near real time relative to entry of the EMR data (‘223; Abstract).
With respect to Claim 27, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the health care data messages comprise Health Level 7 (HL7) messages (‘223; Para 0092: he message data may conform, at least in part, to the HL7 protocol or other communications protocol, for example. The message data may indicate, for example, a lab result has become available for Patient A. As another example, the message data may indicate an x-ray procedure has been ordered for Patient B).
With respect to Claim 34, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine comprises: logic to logically divide health care data messages into segments (‘223; Para 0134).
With respect to Claim 35, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine comprises: logic to cause parsing of only health care data messages that are determined to include one or more segments needed to determine specific analytic results data (‘223; Para 0134: e standard HL7 specification may be used for basic order details. In an embodiment, one or more additional custom segments may be utilized to provide advanced details. In an embodiment, coding and formatting for segments may be agreed upon allowing both sides to be able to decode a message and perform various actions).
With respect to Claim 36, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine comprises: logic to determine efficient or optimal storage of extracted EMR data across one or more tables of the database (‘603; Para 22).
With respect to Claim 37, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine comprises: logic to, for efficiency, avoid extraction of EMR data already extracted from a previous health care data message (‘603; Para 43).
With respect to Claim 38, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine comprises: logic to identify particular segments within the health care data messages, and logic to identify particular fields within the particular segments (‘223; Para 0039).
Claims 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barthell et al. (WO2017091603A1 hereinafter Barthell) in view of Fors et al. (US. 20070168223 hereinafter Fors) and further in view of Kartoun et al. (US20190189253A1 hereinafter Kartoun) and further in view of Siebel et al. (US. 20170006135A1 hereinafter Siebel)
With respect to Claim 28, the combined art does not teach, according to the system of claim 21, wherein the parser engine is implemented utilizing Python Flash API. However, Siebel discloses the aforementioned feature (‘135; Para 0173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthell/Fors/Kartoun with the technique of providing an internet-of-thing applications development as taught by Siebel in order to present patient data and HL7 message on trackerboard or graphical user interface
With respect to Claim 29, the combined art teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the health care data messages received by the parser engine originate from multiple EMR systems (‘603; Fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 30, the combined art does not teach, according to the system of claim 21, comprising: a relational database management system (RDBMS), utilizing Structured Query Language (SQL) and a temporal table structure for storage of both chronologically tracked and historical EMR data and current EMR data. However, Siebel discloses the aforementioned feature (‘135; Para 0173: the relational data store includes a fully integrated relational PostgreSQL database; Para 0141 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthell/Fors/Kartoun with the technique of providing an internet-of-thing applications development as taught by Siebel in order to present patient data and HL7 message on trackerboard or graphical user interface
With respect to Claim 31, the combined art does not teach, according to the system of claim 21, wherein the analytic EMR data is derived at least in part using one or more machine learning models. However, Siebel discloses the aforementioned feature (‘135; Para 0434).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthell/Fors with the technique of providing an internet-of-thing applications development as taught by Siebel in order to present patient data and HL7 message on trackerboard or graphical user interface
With respect to Claim 32, the combined art does not teach, according to the system of claim 21, comprising: a relational database management system (RDBMS), utilizing Structured Query Language (SQL), configured to manage the database;
wherein the RDBMS utilizes a temporal table structure for storage of, per patient, both chronologically tracked and historical EMR data and EMR data from the current health care visit; and
wherein both chronologically tracked and historical EMR data and EMR data from the current medical visit are analyzed to determine the analytic EMR data. However, Siebel discloses the aforementioned feature (‘135; Para 0173: the relational data store includes a fully integrated relational PostgreSQL database; Para 0141 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthell/Fors/Kartoun with the technique of providing an internet-of-thing applications development as taught by Siebel in order to present patient data and HL7 message on trackerboard or graphical user interface
With respect to Claim 33, the combined art does not teach, according to the system of claim 21, comprising: a relational database management system (RDBMS), utilizing Structured Query Language (SQL), configured to manage the database; wherein the RDBMS utilizes a set of tables that are designed to optimize or speed determination of the analytical EMR data. However, Siebel discloses the aforementioned feature (‘135; Para 0173: the relational data store includes a fully integrated relational PostgreSQL database; Para 0141 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the system of Barthell/Fors/Kartoun with the technique of providing an internet-of-thing applications development as taught by Siebel in order to present patient data and HL7 message on trackerboard or graphical user interface.
Response to Arguments
In the Remark filed 12/08/2025, Applicant’s argued the combined art Barthell/Fors/Siebel with respect to amended independent claim(s) 21, 39-40 relating to an indication high risk patient based on machine learning models have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection for amended claims 21, 39-40 have made in view of Barthell/Fors/Kartoun.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP VAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached at 5712728109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEP V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686